Radioactiveman

Expect a decision (or an extension) on Padlake’s ambitious plans for their site at Grand Parade/ St. Patrick’s Street in the next few days. It’s certainly a monster of a development!! See pics below.

St. Patrick’s Street elevation drawing:

St. Patrick’s Street elevation photomontage (very ‘clever’ angle on this one):

View from Washington Street:

@Seanselon wrote:

This project is likely to go ahead, perhaps not as we see it presented in the plans to date, but it will happen and probably within the stated timeframe too.

i admire your optimism, but experience suggests otherwise.

@Citybythelee wrote:

So unless he applies for the 3 year extension, his time may be nigh ! 🙂

Yeah, him coming in here, doing his job properly; overseeing one of the most exciting decades in the city’s development. Getting developers who’d stalled for years to start doing something with huge tracts of land, and all this against vested local interests who’ll knock anything because city management doesn’t trust them to do now what they haven’t done for decades! Yeah, I hate the guy, boooh, hissss. 🙂

Does anybody know what’s going on at the junction of Castle Street, North Main Street, South Main Street and Liberty Street? i.e. the CYMA building. There’s some very oddly positioned hoarding there at the moment.

Wasn’t that the same plan that was mentioned during the recent An Bord Pleanala hearings regarding the compulsary purchase order of the Showgrounds? As far as I was aware, it was put forward as a reason not to allow the CPO to go through. Although i cant remember a waterpark in that plan.

**Edit**

From ‘Developments in Cork’ Thread (16th March 2007):

And a reply from theblimp, when asked who was behind the venture (16th March 2007):
“No, not HH – it was a new grouping that were going to do it by way of some kind of arrangement with MAS – hence the inclusion of a MAS structure on site. Perhaps the fact that it wasn’t one of the ‘established few’ worked against them? I do know, however, that a LOT of work had been done on it. Architects were london-based and there were/are proprietary rights over the roof design which gave it significant advantages over traditional methods”

So, while not having any direct relationship with MAS, it would have clearly been to this groups advantage had Showgrounds stayed in MAS control rather than reverting back to CCC. With MAS’ track record, can you blame CCC for being weary of thiese plans at the ABP hearings?
And then to see a warmed up version, without the MAS arena, but including a waterpark being proposed, must have raised a few eyebrows. How much research had been done on the need/demand for a waterpark in the City?

@theblimp wrote:

Not quite as wonderful as all that, I believe. I was connected to one of the other submissions and we raised BIG concerns about the manner in which the process was managed – e.g.: sent initial letter to City Management (CM) on 1st June looking for clarification on criteria under which submissions should be lodged. Many follow-up phonecalls and THREE weeks later we received a reply. This reply came on a Thursday and the submission had to be in for the following Monday (4 days, including a weekend). A request for an extension was denied.

You seem to be suggesting to us that between the date you submitted a letter to city management and the date they replied, you did no work on your submission, because you didn’t know what ‘criteria’ you should lodge it under!!
Its this sort of lazy attitude which has meant the showground site has remained next to useless for decades. Maybe if the Munster Agricultural Society had got off their backsides and proposed something like this for their site BEFORE they were scared into it by CCC, then it wouldn’t have been neccessary to compulsarily purchase the site to open it up to public access.
It takes a private backer to do this, because clearly voluntatary bodies couldn’t muster up the cop on to do so. Even the GAA, who are to be commended on their work with Croke Park have been slow to redevelop Pairc Ui Chaoimh. But then, I seem to recall the Munster Ag Society having something to do with that delay too!!!

A few ideas for the docklands:

http://ireland.archiseek.com/news/2007/000190.html

http://www.newislington.co.uk/tuttifrutti/

The examiner report that Eason’s are planning on extending their Patrick’s Street store, possibly to another floor. Have they much space at the rear of the site, or are they just going up a floor in the existing building?
Good article on Pana in the Examiner business section this morning (Cork/Munster edition). Of course it’s not on their website, because nobody outside Cork would be interested in reading about such parochial issues 😡

@kite wrote:

Regarding the spectacular planning application Radioactiveman, I think you will be proved right on that. Plans should include the removal of the street running behind the old Phillips store and the Fruit & Veg warehouse with it being covered and incorporated into the proposed development now that Joe Gavin got his wish to remove the old warehouse (next to the Bridewell Garda Station) from the proposed Record of Protected Structures allowing it to be demolished.

Thanks for setting us straight on that one kite.

With regard to Kyrl’s Quay, CCC recently advertised their intention to remove right of way through Kyrl’s Street (??) i.e. the street running through that particular site and emerging outside the Bridewell Garda Station,

This has been mentioned in other threads before, but during 2005, CCC ran a design competition for this very site. The winning entry was by Conroy Architecture:

The judges liked:
1. The recognition of the importance of the river by the provision of a raised river-side walk.
2. The proposal opens new routes between Kyrl’s Quay, the City Wall and the City.
3. Placing the buildings at right angles to the quay creates new routes through the site, allows views across the site, links to the river and improves the permeability of the entire area.
4. The entrants showed a careful consideration of circulation routes and the use of different levels linked to public spaces.
5.The concept and building forms are sufficiently robust to accommodate a range of uses including retail, offices, residential, leisure and cultural activities.’

Other well placed entries include:

Expect a taller design when Murray Ford submit in the next few weeks.

@malec wrote:

Lots of stuff being demolished.
Again, if people have renders or know details of what is going on please post.

Correct, a four storey hotel at on Beasly (??) street. Good design. Pity about the loss of some of the facade to Parnell Place.

Massive demolition and rebuild of the entire “Dunnes Block”. Academy Street was supposed to be done at the same time, however we’re stil waiting for the OK from ABP.

See my last post, one page back. OCP developing retail and office here. Just got green light form CCC, however expect appeal to ABp due to “protected” nature of adjacent Matthews centre.

Everything to be demolished here, except the facade of the pub next door. Pub to be rebuilt with new appartments. Should have spectacular views of College of Comm, Holy Trinity and School of Music on the river.

Grand Parade is flying along. Should be slightly ahead of schedule, just before Christmas. The Berwick fountain (Right) is being slowly rebuilt very slightly to the west of its original spot. Thank god they kept what is now the only working fountain on the city streets.

This is a big hole they’ve left. There will be another outside the Library and one more near the National Monument. Plan is to insert a Kiosk with special decking/paving at each site to sell coffee, newspapers etc. Cant say I agree with the idea. Will only serve to clutter the place up and make the new plaza areas less usefull in terms of holding outdoor events on the street. The first one should be in place outsie Bishop Lucey Park (pictured) by August.

See amendments to quote above. Well done on the images malec!